Supreme Court of Virginia

The Court of Appeals erred in finding that a hit-and-run defendant's conclusory proffer in support of a request for additional funds to secure trial testimony from a DNA expert showed the required ?particularized need.? The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and defendant?s conviction is reinstated.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction under Code § 18.2-371.1(A) of a Class 4 felony for criminal neglect of her ten-month-old son, resulting in his death, and her conviction pursuant to Code § 18.2-371.1(B) of a Class 6 felony for criminal neglect of her daughter, aged two years and ten months. Changes in the charges after a prior reversal of her convictions were not shown to be vindictive, and the trial court correctly refused to quash the additional indictment. The convictions are affirmed.

The trial court erred in ruling under Code § 38.2-2204 that an insurer was not required to provide automobile liability coverage for a named insured alleged to have negligently entrusted the insured vehicle to a permissive user where the insurer had already paid the "per person" policy limit in settlement of a negligence claim against the permissive user. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

The trial court did not err in sustaining a demurrer to an action by two landowners, aggrieved by the local governing body's approval of a subdivision of neighboring property, attacking that approval indirectly by suit against the subdividers and their successors in title. The judgment is affirmed.

The trial court erred in refusing to qualify as an expert witness a physician called by a medical malpractice plaintiff, after hearing evidence about his familiarity with the standard of care in Virginia. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded.

In a case involving four limited partnerships, the chancellor correctly held that dissolution occurred when a managing partner's physical condition amounted to effective retirement, and that under express terms of the parties' agreements it was the remaining general partner's duty to sell or liquidate the assets of the partnerships. However, the chancellor erred in ruling that a successor partnership was required to make payments to limited partners in the original four partnerships based on a particular appraisal. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered.

The trial court erred in ruling that a lot in a residential subdivision is no longer subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting resubdivision without prior written consent of three-fourths of the current lot owners. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The trial court erred in concluding that the term "direct lineal descendants" used in certain inter vivos trusts created prior to 1978 includes adopted persons. The decree is reversed and final judgment is entered.

After a plaintiff who lacked standing to bring an action took a nonsuit, the circuit court ruled correctly in a second action ? by a proper plaintiff ? in allowing a nonsuit as a matter of right because the plaintiff without standing and the proper plaintiff in the second action were not suing in the same right. However, the court erred by entering that nonsuit order nunc pro tunc to a date 18 months earlier when the motion for nonsuit was filed. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

In a case concerning whether the pasturing of a horse within a residential subdivision either violated certain restrictive covenants and exceptions thereto set out in a recorded declaration, or constituted an enjoinable nuisance, the trial court erred in its interpretation of the legal effect of the covenants and exceptions. While it did not err in finding that a nuisance existed, the court erred in the scope of the remedy it prescribed on that basis. The case reversed in part and affirmed in part, and remanded to the trial court.

In a medical negligence action, the circuit court did not err in refusing to permit the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant physician regarding alleged prior acts of negligence and misconduct. The judgment is affirmed.

In a personal injury action, the trial court did not err in granting the parties the right to file, pursuant to Code § 8.01-428(C), a notice of appeal from an earlier order entering judgment, and therefore defendant's notice of appeal was timely filed. Issues concerning plaintiff's contributory negligence, the trial court's questioning of a witness, availability of damages for deposition-related stress, exclusion of evidence, propriety of closing argument, and excessiveness of the verdict are addressed. The judgment is affirmed.

In a suit to rescind a commercial lease amendment, the lessor was not entitled to a presumption of undue influence, and the chancellor erred in granting rescission based on such a presumption, where the record was insufficient to support either the finding that the lessor had a confidential relationship with the lessee's representative or that the amendment was either given in exchange for grossly inadequate consideration or was obtained under suspicious circumstances. The decree rescinding the lease amendment is reversed and final judgment is entered in favor of the lessee.

The trial court did not err in concluding that a waiver of uninsured motorist insurance coverage higher than the statutory minimum by a single named insured on a business vehicle insurance policy is binding upon all other named insureds on the policy under Code § 38.2-2206. The judgment is affirmed.

A portion of a prior order providing a limited grant of a Writ of Habeas Corpus is reinstated and the case is remanded to the circuit court for a jury determination of the petitioner's claim of mental retardation in accord with Code §§ 8.01-654.2, 18.2-10, 19.2-175, 19.2-264.3:1, 19.2-264.3:1.1, 19.2-264.3:1.2, 19.2-264.3:3, and 19.2-264.4.

In an employment dispute involving an agency of the Commonwealth and one of its employees, resolved under a now-superseded version of the statutory provisions governing grievances and the powers of the first-level respondent to afford relief, the legislature provided the employee with the substantive right to be afforded a remedy by the first-level respondent. Once the employee accepted the remedy, the statutory scheme at the time precluded management from contesting the decision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the circuit court is reinstated. The case is remanded.

The trial court erred in striking the plaintiff's evidence with respect to counts charging assault and willful and wanton conduct in a case arising from a non-contact altercation between the drivers of two automobiles. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial on both theories.

Because a prior probation revocation is not admissible in the penalty determination phase of a bifurcated criminal jury trial as part of ?the record of conviction? of the defendant?s ?prior criminal convictions? pursuant to Code § 19.2-295.1, the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the contrary is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

The circuit court erred in going forward with trial of a declaratory judgment proceeding because the relief requested was a determination of a disputed issue rather than an adjudication of the parties? rights, and should have been litigated in a breach of contract action. The judgment is reversed and the case is dismissed.

In a personal injury action against a grocery store, the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury, but the court erred in instructing the jury that the store could be liable for the negligence of an independent contractor working on the floors. The store did not have a duty to supervise the work and did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the condition causing plaintiff's injury. Final judgment is entered affirming in part and reversing in part.

In a personal injury action against a grocery store, the issue of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury, but the court erred in instructing the jury that the store could be liable for the negligence of an independent contractor working on the floors. The store did not have a duty to supervise the work and did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the condition causing plaintiff's injury. Final judgment is entered affirming in part and reversing in part.

The trial court correctly ruled that a lien may attach to the vested interest of a remainderman who takes from a life tenant having full power to dispose of the entire corpus of the estate, and that a creditor of a remainderman may enforce the lien after the death of the life tenant, when the remainderman predeceases the life tenant. The judgment is affirmed.

In responding to a certified question of law, it is held that a personal injury plaintiff's contributory negligence in connection with a fall from an apartment balcony may be relied upon by the defendant apartment owner even where the protective railing of the balcony does not comply with municipal building code height requirements.

In a declaratory judgment proceeding, the trial court correctly concluded that an uninsured motorist's use of a car door to injure the insured was a use of the uninsured vehicle "as a vehicle" such that uninsured motorist coverage was applicable under Code § 38.2-2206 and the terms of the injured insured's own motor vehicle insurance policy. The judgment is affirmed.

The trial court correctly held that partition could not be compelled by a life tenant of certain properties as against holders of the remainder interests in the properties. Denial of summary judgment on the life tenant's partition claim against another life tenant was not an appealable order. The judgment is affirmed in part and remanded.

The evidence in an action for malicious prosecution was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding that a prosecution against the plaintiff was instituted without probable cause. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to strike the evidence and motion to set aside the jury verdict. The judgment is reversed, and final judgment is entered for the defendant.

In a personal injury case, the trial court erred in excluding evidence of lost income allegedly suffered by the plaintiff, whose employer continued to pay him his regular salary during the period of his disability. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

The judgment in a suit involving restrictive covenants for building set-backs and buffer areas in a residential subdivision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded. Issues are addressed with respect to specific enforcement of covenants, approvals by an architectural review committee under a recorded declaration, failure to plead claims for particular equitable relief, various equitable defenses, and the award of attorneys' fees.

A personal injury plaintiff's recovery for the negligence of one tortfeasor under the liability provision of a motor vehicle insurance policy did not preclude her recovery under the underinsured motorist provision of the same policy for the negligence of a joint tortfeasor. The trial court erred in ruling to the contrary on summary judgment. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for the plaintiff.

An anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigatory stop of a vehicle in which defendant was a passenger. Thus, the stop and subsequent search of the defendant were illegal, and the trial court erred in refusing to grant pre-trial suppression of the firearm and narcotics evidence seized. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the indictments are dismissed.

In a proceeding remanded from the United States Supreme Court, it is held that a redevelopment and housing authority's trespass policy is not void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the authority's policy does not violate a defendant's right of intimate association guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and final judgment is entered affirming the defendant's trespass conviction.

The circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of consequential damages in a breach of contract action concerning assignment of intellectual property rights arising out of a privately sponsored research program at a public university, because a reasonably prudent person in the position of the contracting parties would have considered these damages to be the natural consequences of a breach of the agreement. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Plaintiff?s failure to serve the required notice along with the motion for judgment in a personal injury suit meant that defendant never received "process." The trial court thus lacked jurisdiction over defendant and erred in entering a default judgment. Since the process was defective, rather than the manner of service, the savings provision of Code § 8.01-288 does not apply. The default is vacated and the judgment is reversed. The case is remanded.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction under Code § 59.1-41.3 for knowing possession of illegally reproduced videocassettes for sale, and that conviction is affirmed. A charge for possessing compact discs that did not disclose their true manufacturer (a counterfeiter) is dismissed because Code § 59.1-41.4 does not independently criminalize failure to abide by its labeling requirements. A related probation revocation disposition is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Under Code § 15.2-2309(2) a board of zoning appeals has no authority to grant a variance from the applicable zoning ordinance provisions unless the ordinance, as applied to the property under consideration, would, in the absence of a variance, interfere with all reasonable beneficial uses of the property, taken as a whole. Three judgments involving variance resolutions are reversed and final judgments are entered.

In an action alleging breach of contract and constructive fraud based on an insurance agent's alleged failure to procure a fire insurance policy with certain provisions, the circuit court did not err in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to a constructive fraud claim and in striking the plaintiff's evidence on a breach of contract claim. The judgment is affirmed.

In a personal injury action, the trial court erred in excluding certain testimony proffered by the plaintiff and allowing other testimony over objection. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.

The trial court erred in denying summary judgment for an injured plaintiff, who was "using" a tractor-trailer in a manner contemplated by Code § 38.2-2206(B) when he was injured and, thus, was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage despite the fact that he had neither previously occupied nor immediately intended to occupy the tractor-trailer at the time of his injury. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered for plaintiff.

The circuit court did not err in finding defendant guilty of three counts of arson where the facts showed that two vehicles and a home were destroyed by fire ignited on one of the vehicles. The judgment of the Court of Appeals confirming these convictions is affirmed.